base_tablePreview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions optional volatility via 'persist' parameter, but does not detail side effects like temporary table creation, permissions required, or what 'inferred structure' includes. The description covers basic behavior but lacks depth on safety or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action. Including the argument list, while redundant with the schema, is acceptable for quick reference. Could be slightly more concise by removing the list, but overall it is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return format. It states 'returns a data sample and inferred structure' and for persist 'returns table name', but does not specify the data format (e.g., JSON object, array) or structure details. This leaves ambiguity about the exact output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats the same parameter explanations from the schema without adding new information (e.g., persist: 'If True, materializes result as a volatile table...' is identical). Therefore, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Returns a data sample (top 5 rows) and inferred structure from a database table or view.' The verb is specific ('Returns') and the resource is well-defined ('database table or view'), distinguishing it from siblings like base_readQuery which executes arbitrary SQL, or base_tableDDL which returns schema definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates the tool is for previewing data ('data sample') but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like base_readQuery for full queries or base_columnDescription for specific columns. While the purpose is clear, no usage boundaries or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.